Manish Kumar, Gurgaon v. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 1931/DEL/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 193120114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ANWPK8671N
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1931/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant Manish Kumar, Gurgaon
Respondent ITO, Gurgaon
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 17-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 09-02-2012
Next Hearing Date 09-02-2012
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 19-04-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ITA NO. 1931/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 MANISH KUMAR 310/25 VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER SHAKTI NAGAR PATAUDI CHOWK WARD 3 GURGAON (HR.) GURGAON. (PAN: ANWPK8671N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VINOD KUMA R GARG CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RS NEGI SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.02.2012 ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 02.02.2011 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH CO NTAIN SUB-GROUNDS ALSO. APART FROM TAKING THE ADDITIONS ON MERIT ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED IN GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2(A) THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE . THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES 1962. LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THOUGH CALLED 2 FOR A REMAND REPORT ON SUCH EVIDENCE FROM THE ASSES SING OFFICER BUT DID NOT READ THE EVIDENCE WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE ON M ERIT. HE PRAYED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IMPUGNED ORDERS BE SET ASI DE AND THE ISSUES BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR R EADJUDICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS GRANTED DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FAILED T O SUBMIT THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS R IGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION. 2. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECO RD THAT ASSESSEE AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS RUNNING A DAIRY IN THE NAME AND S TYLE OF MANISH DAIRY. HE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.6.2007 DECLARI NG AN INCOME OF RS.1 73 196. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) DATED 8 TH SEPTEMBER 2008 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTE R EFFECTED THE SERVICE THROUGH REGISTERED POST. ON 10.8.2009 SHRI L.C. YA DAV ADVOCATE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND FILED HIS POWER OF AT TORNEY. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR A NUMBER OF INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER HIS QUERIES REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH. ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS POINTED OUT 3 VARIOUS ERRORS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ITR AS WELL AS IN THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY HIM. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE AVAILABILITY OF OPENING CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS.11 34 296. HE TREATED IT AS AN UNEXPLAINED INCOM E. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE INVESTMENT IN THE LIVE STOCK B UFFALOES CATTLES AND MACHINERY ETC. ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY TREATE D THE ALLEGED OPENING BALANCE AS GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN PL ACE OF RS.2 39 266 SHOWN BY HIM IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS WAY DETERMINED THE TAXAB LE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.60 57 455. 3. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). IT CONTENDE D THAT HIS COUNSEL SHRI L.C. YADAV DID NOT APPRAISE HIM THE DETAILS SOUGHT BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. HE DID NOT HANDLE THE CASE PROPERLY AND FA ILED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT PERM ISSION TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS. LEAR NED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY PARTLY TAKEN THOSE DETAILS INTO CONSIDERA TION AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NO DOUBT FROM PERUSAL OF T HE RECORD IT REVEALS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH 4 WERE NOT PROPERLY AVAILED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ASSESSEE HAS SPE CIFICALLY PLEADED THAT HIS COUNSEL HAS NOT CARE TO PRODUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCE A ND HAS ALSO NOT APPRAISED HIM ABOUT THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DETAILS PLACED ON RECORD IN THE P APER BOOK WHICH IS RUNNING INTO 116 PAGES WHICH INCLUDE THE COPIES OF THE JUDG MENTS ALSO. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE INCOM E JUST AT RS.1 73 196 FROM RUNNING OF A MILK DIARY. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.60 57 455 THE HUGE TAX DEMAND HAS BEE N RESULTED MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE NEGLIGENCE IN CONDUCTING THE IT PROC EEDINGS. IN OUR OPINION PUNISHMENT IN THE SHAPE OF TAX LIABILITY IS DISPROP ORTIONATE TO THE NEGLIGENCE COMMITTED IN CONDUCTING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT A PPROPRIATE TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE S ET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE RESTORE ALL THESE ISS UES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATION. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMIT THE REQUISITE DETAILS. OUR OBSERVATIONS WILL NOT IMPAIR OR INJURE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR WILL NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENCE/EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE. 5 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.02.201 2 SD/- SD/- ( K.G. BANSAL ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17/02/2012 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR